He tried ignoring his base in the primary when it was rallying behind marriage in North Carolina and rallying behind Chick-fil-a when it was under attack, and that didnt work. Then he tried just scaring people into voting against Obama, and that didnt work.

The result was Romney  thats right, the guy that was once named the No.8 RINO in the country by Human Events  provided the country the most teachable moment on the differences between Republicans and Democrats in a presidential election since before Al Gore invented the Internet.

No, he wasnt perfect. He still bought into the Lefts soak the rich redistribution of wealth flawed premise. He still got caught lauding the virtues of government regulation. And he is still the guy that provided the blueprint for Obamacare.

But Rome wasnt built in a day.

When Romney was on, he was really on. He invoked the 10th Amendment. When was the last time a GOP presidential nominee did that? The answer that gave him the highest marks from a CNN focus group featuring undecided voters in the swing state of Colorado was Romney contrasting our philosophy of government from the Democrats, including Romney citing our founding documents like The Declaration of Independence.

Be still my beating heart.

Romney made me forget he was, well, Romney. I found myself cheering him on for the first time since, well, ever. Why? For me its not about personalities, factions, or partisanship. Im just not a person motivated to vote for any hackneyed Republican because the Democrat is so bad anymore. Been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt. All that gave me was more big and immoral government and a loss of brand integrity.

The ruling class wants it to be about those petty things so it doesnt have to provide what the American people are clamoring forleadership. So if only Nixon could go to China and Nebuchadnezzar could praise Daniels God, then Im certainly not going to muzzle the ox while its treading its grain. Yes, Romneys record in Massachusetts is still heinous. And yes, there are times I trust him about as much as I trust the secondary of my Detroit Lions. But Im also thankful that Romney chose the biggest stage in the world to defend vital parts of my belief system. Besides, given his past, its not like he doesnt owe us one or a few.

See, for me this is about principles. A good friend of mine who is a national leader in the pro-life movement told me after the debate Wednesday night, I never thought Id be cheering on Romney. I told him, Youre not cheering on Romney. Youre cheering on our principles because Romney finally decided to run on them.

Most of us become Republicans because of the principles in the party platform, and we recognize that those who dont are usually the worst Republicans. After this debate, I sensed conservatives more united than we had been since the Scott Walker recall. Thats because principles unite us, while tactical obfuscation and architect electioneering divides us. The party establishment thinks we want their candidates to be perfect, when really all we want them to be is Republicans.

This was different than Romneys well-chronicled and convenient etch-a-sketches in Republican primaries the past two election cycles on issues conservatives care deeply about. This was a candidate going on a national stage and doing what John McCain, George W. Bush, and Bob Dole were either incapable of doing or unwilling to. This was a guy willing to draw some stark worldview differences between himself and his Democrat opponent, while pointing out exactly why his Democrat opponent failed.

Remember when McCain-Palin spent four total debates four years ago never challenging the Democrat meme that free market economics is what led to the banking crisis? Remember how you got so mad you wanted to dislodge your own eyeball without anesthetic out of frustration? Remember screaming at the television set, begging and pleading the GOP ticket to actually defend what you believe for once?

Wednesday night our pleas were answered from an unlikely source, but at this point Ill take it where I can get it. You can tell Romney was effective because the Left is claiming he transformed himself into a moderate to defeat Obama. No, weve seen Romney as a moderate. Its called the 2012 Republican presidential primary. And weve seen Republican presidential candidates running as moderates, and we all have the collective scars to prove it.

This was Romney finally throwing caution (and hopefully his incestuous batch of defeatist consultants) to the wind and proving once for all that unlike McCain hes willing to do what it takes to become president. What it takes is drawing stark distinctions between Republicans and Democrats and meaning it. When voters see stark distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans win. When voters dont, Democrats do.

Conservatism works every time its tried.

Now that Romney has gone from sprinkling to full immersion conservative baptism under fire, lets see if he follows through the final four weeks of the campaign. If he does, then for the first time I believe he could actually become the next President of the United States, and Republicans down ballot all over the country will benefit on November 6th.

Finally, for more of my thoughts on the impact of the debate, and what it means in the race moving forward, you can click here.

Romney isn’t the conservative many want but he sure beats Obama and gives time for America to be saved. When drowning, even a soiled life perserver is better than going under for good.
Hope those who would rather Obama win than vote for Romney live well with what they cause us all to suffer.

Deace beat his old secret cell member buddy Axelrod to the punch in attacking Herman Cain.

Seriously, this guy isn't what he would like you to think he is ~ he pays lip service to some Conservative principles, but he is in league with the Acolytes of the Antichrist to drive Conservatism from the public square.

Almost ninety minutes of argument about which one of them, Romney or Obama, can best micro-manage the unconstitutional socialist welfare state and the lives of the American people is not mitigated by a tiny dose of lip service paid by Romney to conservative principle.

When Romney references the Tenth Amendment it is always in the context of the national government being on top, and “giving” something to the states.

Which shows yet again that he has no clue.

12
posted on 10/06/2012 7:32:44 AM PDT
by EternalVigilance
(Congratulations on your big 'win.' Obviously, Romney is a much more capable socialist than Obama.)

Thanks, sweetie. I didn't “come up with” Romney. But I don't want to live with Obama so even though Romney wasn't even my third choice in the primary, I will hold my nose and vote to be rid of Obama. I will suffer “existential angst” if you true conservatives don't work harder and sooner next time to get a non Rino on the ticket. I personally have worked here in NC for the last 4 years with groups that do represent conservative values and will continue. But in this time frame I have the lesser of 2 evils to chose from... Rino or insane, egotist.

What if the 'real' Romney is the Conservative side of the flip-flop? What if he just pretended to be a RINO to get elected in liberal Mass? What if his secret comment about the 47% is more how he really believes than the public face he projects to get elected? He did promote states rights, school vouchers, and taking a hacksaw to government programs, and he picked Paul Ryan, Mr. Medicare Voucher Guy!

I am open to giving him a try and holding him to what he says. Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler are a few I see as a worse choice than the Muslim. I think any Rino goes slower at socialism than the Muslim and it is easier to stop a slow vehicle than the speeding train we have in the WH.

i'm totally anti-baby killing, but do not believe we can mandate on the last two -- that's the choice of the mother and it is a horrible one: to choose her life or the life of her baby

however the numbers of abortions due to ALL 4 of these is barely 0.5% to 1% of the total number of abortions.

we should focus first on the saving of the largest number -- the babies killed for no reason other than "birth control"

For Incest and rape, remember that these are a tiny number -- and I agreee that there is no justification for the abortion and it is a sin, but focussing on this instead of the larger number of babies which we can save is wrong.

22
posted on 10/06/2012 8:30:03 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

In reality it's a sort of depreciation of the value of the Presidency. We bring in a new suit with a different team ~ and they make other stupid mistakes.

I think this sort of thing will ultimately lead to a total parliamentary system. It's getting too expensive to keep in place a permanently elected gang of thieves ~ we need to be able to remove them pursuant to a vote in Congress to hold an election.

i'm totally anti-baby killing, but do not believe we can mandate on the last two -- that's the choice of the mother and it is a horrible one: to choose her life or the life of her baby however the numbers of abortions due to ALL 4 of these is barely 0.5% to 1% of the total number of abortions.

Cronos, I'm surprised both at you letting Romney off the hook, as you have done here, and compromising at any level on the murder of innocents being the committed conservative Catholic that you are.

First of all, re-read my post, Romney stated he was for Abortions for the HEALTH of the mother, not the LIFE.

As we all know, this is the same lie that the left uses all the time to generalize about what the meaning of the HEALTH of the mother means and justify much more than the paltry 0.5% of abortions as you stated.

Instead of compromising on this issue because Romney is your Republican candidate, why not stand true to your conservative, Christian principles, and hold his feet to the fire and demand he change his position?

Wouldn't that be more in line with a solid Chrisitan walk?

26
posted on 10/06/2012 6:04:21 PM PDT
by SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)

First of all, re-read my post, Romney stated he was for Abortions for the HEALTH of the mother, not the LIFE.

Actually, I should correct that post.

He actually stated he was for abortions for both the Health and Life of the mother.

Furthermore, Mitt has been adamantly stating he was completely pro-life this whole campaign, and now all of a sudden, he states he has been telling us along this campaign season that he supports abortion under these circumstances.

Seems the English language means what Mitt Romney wants it to mean, kind of like Bill Clinton.

27
posted on 10/06/2012 6:13:04 PM PDT
by SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)

I'm not letting Romney off the hook. Nor am I condoning anyone for taking an abortion with the excuse of their health: physical or mental

I am against baby killing of all stripes on a religious basis. On a legal basis, again there can be no justification for the taking of a life unless someone believes that their own life is in danger -- what I mean is this, I'm not a woman and I cannot demand a woman to sacrifice her life -- those who DO, are saints and I salute them

My numbers of 0.5% are taken from the statistics of Polish abortions -- Poland allows abortions only for rape, incest, mother's life and health and foetal defects -- and abortion % is 0.16 -- in 2010 there were 413,300 births and 644 abortions in the country (so abortions under the excuse of rape etc. -- I don't know the break up of these)

US population is approximately 9 times the size of Poland's -- hence if we ONLY allowed abortion in case of rape,incest,mother's health and life and foetal "defects", the number of babykillings that would be allowed would be 6,100 -- in stead we have 676,823 --> so one can conclude that out of all the abortions int he US, 99% are not for incest/rape/mothers life/mother health/foeatl defects

THAT's where I get my numbers from -- in contrast, in the US or Russia ti is 20% or more.

Using those numbers, I guestimate that legitimate abortions for mother's health and life are 0.5%

28
posted on 10/07/2012 12:43:22 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

I want Romney to reverse the "free babykillings", but look around you -- the dims are using the 1% of abortions to justify the killing of the other 99% (and those 99% are just for "unwanted pregnancies" -- as evil as killing a baby girl at 3 months)

Look at the bigger picture -- we want to save lives. If we fall for left's game of using the 1% to justifiy the 99%, we fail those 99%.

For now we must focus on the ending of frivolous abortion (the 99%) -- next, when we have the Presidency, Congress and the Senate, then baby killing (instead of adoption) for incest, rape and "foetal defects" is to end -- and note for the latter, I believe it is your and my responsibility as society (NOT government's) to help the parents with children with disabilities

Finally we are then left with a pregnancy that can harms a woman's health (physical) or endanger her life -- for this, I cannot demand her to do this, even though I believe it is wrong to take a life. I can help her through this difficult decision, ask her to think about it, to change her mind, but I cannot demand it of her, I'm sorry. Such a situation is one of a horrible decision, but it is the woman's decision.

29
posted on 10/07/2012 12:50:34 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

finally note that this has been my position (unable to demand on mother's life or health) way before Romney. It has not changed in the past decade since I seriously thought about this and it will not change -- baby killing is baby killing.

Baby killing with the justification of mother's life/health is still horrible, but as I gave in the stats above, this is 0.5% or at max 1% of all abortions --> I am sympathetic with the mother's in those situations and think those who do not kill are saints, but I am HORRIFIED at mothers (AND fathers) who kill their babies for "birth control"

30
posted on 10/07/2012 12:53:29 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

muawiyah "Antibiotics eliminated virtually all the reasons for maternal deaths. " -- I agree. And that is what will bring down the number of abortions even after -- as I said, let us focus on one step at a time -- the first step to be the biggest, to stop the frivolous baby killings, the 99%

Do NOT let the left say "they want mothers to die " -- you think they will care about the fact of what Muawiyah has said? Do you think it would work in the MSM? No. We must not give the left the chance

Save the 99%, then work to save more babies.

32
posted on 10/07/2012 1:01:24 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

I say it does work -- and I give you Poland as an example. Under the communists, all abortions were ok. Now it is limited to just the 4 I talked about above. And recently there have been moved to cut out the legality of babykilling for incest and rape

It can work if we save 99%

35
posted on 10/07/2012 5:37:17 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

And I am NOT saying to choose the innocent to murder -- neither you nor I are doing the murder or would do it. Also, we would talk to mothers who fear for their health or lives if they give birth and tell them about the medical aid that would prevent that

No, we need to work slowly -- if we go for all, we get shot down by the liberals.

Would you want to be able to quickly pass a law to save 600,000 babies a year? I would still be horrified by the 60,000 killed, but it would be the next step.

Instead if we are intransigent we risk the entire 660,000 dying...

And note that the legality doesn't mean we condone it.

36
posted on 10/07/2012 5:40:16 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

Why? We both believe that abortion is evil and wrong -- in all circumstances. Yes, I believe that abortion even for a mother's health is a sin

And you want to save babies just as I do. I believe that by not giving the left the opportunity to stop anti-abortion laws by saying "oh, what about the 1%"? we say more babies NOW

The rest we must work to once this first, biggest hurdle is crossed

It's like the horrible choice of an army fighting the enemy -- we can defend all and lose everything (which we will if we go INITIALLY for everything) or if we defend the 99% we save the 99% now and then go on to saving the remaining 1%

38
posted on 10/07/2012 6:20:28 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

Correcting my numbers -- we have 660,000 babies killed each year. If we ban all abortions except for the 4 points that the left talks about (incest, rape, mothers health, mothers life) -- we instantly give the left no ground to stand on and they have to let us with this

We then save 656,000 out of 660,000 babies -- we can work to saving more

If we hold out for everything, then we lose everything and next year instead of 6000 babies being killed, 660,000 gets killed -- and mark my words -- I'm still appalled by the 6000 and will continue to work to save all, but let us cut the legs under the left by saving the 656,000 first.

39
posted on 10/07/2012 6:27:39 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

again, I'm not talking about kow-towing with them. I'm talking about turning the tables on them. They prevent the saving of the majority (99.5%) of babies with their arguments of mother's health and death.

I'm saying cut the legs under them so we can ban all abortions --- first start by saying ok, concessions for the murders they talk about. THEN, we instantly save 656,000 babies in that year itself

If we don't fight the battle in parts we lose all the babies permanently.

41
posted on 10/07/2012 11:26:01 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

" I have suggested that we turn the tables on them by simply prohibiting the expenditure of public funds to protect them." --> if you mean that abortion and contraception shouldn't be on any medical healthcare -- I completely, 100% agree. It is not a "health care" issue

But, I don't see how " de-interpose the state in any aspect of it." -- or I may not be understanding you correctly. We want the state to criminalize babykilling, right?

43
posted on 10/08/2012 12:36:14 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

Don't try to be evasive. If there's some sort of process and the state is interposed in it in any way, e.g. providing access to the courts to its practitioners or customers for example, you get a certain outcome.

Now, if you reverse the situation and pull out the state, and just leave the practitioners and customers on their own, you get a different outcome.

That's pretty much Conservative philosophy on the place of government ~ that if you put the government in you get an outcome, and if you take the government out you get another outcome.

The 10th amendment pretty well covers that ~ the government need not be involved in all aspects of society, social organization or behavior.

It seems to me the government need not be involved in picking the winners and the losers in the abortion business ~ that can be left entirely up to private individuals and it will take care of itself.

There's an existing counterpart to this in the liquor store business. The courts treat a liquor store robbery as not being all that different from stealing quarters from a newspaper vending machine ~ as a sort of nuisance. Folks who run liquor stores are expected to deal with their own 'in-store' problems ~ and they do so with an armed guard, frequently on a small mezzanine overlooking the main working area ~ or by arming all the employees.

They do not get FBI protection!

Even if your store is burned out ~ as a friend of mine's was ~ you don't get FBI help, even in DC ~ and he was in DC. Unless someone comes along and confesses burning it down you'll get little sympathy in the courts, even if you are a lawyer, which he was.

The insurance companies won't bother paying off until you get that confession and get the perpetrator tried and convicted.

That's a practical application of the 10th amendment.

Tossing the abortion industry into the same environment of freedom enjoyed by the liquor industry might bring about some interesting developments ~ like (1) Being priced out of the market, (2) Finding few new entrants to take over existing practices, (3) .........

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.